St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-12-14
HARPER'S PARTNER.
The Assistant Cashier of the
Fidelity Bank on
Trial.
He Pleads Not Guilty to the
Charge Of Misappli-
cation.
No Prison Garb on Hand
Large Enough For
Harper.
Dastardly Deed Of a Drunken
Son--The Criminal
Record.

CINCINNATI, Dec. 13.-The trial of
BENJAMIN E. Hopkins, late assistant
cashier of the Fidelity bank, began this
morning in the United States court,
Judge Sage presiding alone. The court
passed upon the demurrers which had
been argued. and struck out six of the
forty or fifty counts, which cover prac-
tically the same acts. The Indictment
as it remains was stated in substance to
the defendant TO be charge of miSap-
DIication of the funds of the Fidelity
National bank. and of making false en-
tries in the books of the bank. To this
the defendant pleaded not guilty. The
Jurors summoned were then called and
sworn to answer questions touching
their fitness to serve on this trial.
The slow process of their examination
then began. Ten of the iurymen are
farmers. one is a stock dealer and the
twelfth is bOok-binder. Mr.. Bateman
demanded bill of particulars of the
specific transactions upon which the
alleged OffenSes named in the first count
are based. The court will rule upon
that tomorrow. Mr.. Bruce, for the
government, then stated that they eX-
pected to show that Hopkins had at one
time miSapplied 100000 of the Fidelity
banks funds and $4,000 at another
time: that he had drawn his check upon
the bank for large sums when he had
no funds to draw upon, and that he had
made false entries in the books of the
bank, representing millions of dollars
used in the Wiltshire wheat deal. Mr..
Bateman, for the defense, said they
would prove that the defendant was not
aware of what was being done in
the bank: that he signed i'm
proper drafts when handed to him
with others by Harper, not knowing
their nature. Frank A. Armstrong,
now employed in the Cincinnati post
office but recently a broker. testified
that in March last the defendant met
him on the stock exchange, made an APP
pointment to meet him at BOman's,
where Hopkins arranged to have wit
ness buy for him 100000 bushels of
wheat on Chicago on 2-cent margin.
Witness took the order and Hopkins
gave him a $4,000 draft of the Fidelity
on the Metropolitan bank, of Chicago.
Hopkins said the deal was not for him
self, but was for strong party whom
he couldn't name. Chicago wanted
more margin. and witness sought Hop
kins, who would give him no answer
until he saw his principal. 1t was not
till II or 80 Hopkins told him to sell
out the wheat. which he did. making a
loss of $3.50. He paid the pro-
ceeds to Hopkins in currency at
the bank at Hopkins request.
John I. Snodgrass, of Chicago, dealer
in grain and provisions, was neXtcalled.
He was asked TO state a conversation he
had with Mr.. Hopkins in February last
here. but the defense objected. The
Jury was sent out while the court In
0uired what the testimony was and then
ruled it competent. Mr.. SnOdgrasS went
on to say that Hopkins told him he was
wanting some one in Chicago to manage
for a friend of his who was amply able,
a deal or a ''eOrner''in wheat; that they,
as he named the unknown hacker or
hackers, wanted to buy Oh a twO-cent
margin and give New York exchange
at the close of every day as might be re-
ouired by the state of the market. Wit
ness said he could not close the arrange
ment unless he went to Chicago and con-
suited his firm. Next day he had tele-
gram from Mr.. Hopkins signed Ben"
saying: IF you can comply with our
conversation, buy million bushels OF
May wheat"
Witness said this conversation was
Feb. % last, and the telegram was next
day. On crOSS-eXaminatiOn he said he
did nothing on that order; that he re-
piled to the telegram in person, telling
Hopkins that his firm wanted more mar
gin and must know who was the princi-
pal. Hopkins said there were others
who would do the business on the terms
he wished, and so the matter dropped.
Mr.. Bateman watches every point that
will enable him to harraSs the prOSecu-
ton with a view to breaking the force
of the testimony. He is evidently de-
termined to make the best legal fight for
his client that can made. In the
matter of this witnesses testimony he
drew out all three of the government
counsel on the argument. Adjourned.